Does being wealthy make you unethical? New research suggests it does

High socioeconomic status individuals are significantly more likely to engage …

In this week's PNAS, researchers at UC Berkeley and the University of Toronto tackle a topic that is bound to spark controversy. I'll let the title speak for itself: "Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior." The paper describes the results of seven studies—two field studies and five experimental tests—that sought to explore how socioeconomic status (SES) correlates with behavior that most of us would consider ethical.

Trying to reason out the impact of social status could send you running in circles. Could lower SES motivate individuals towards increased unethical behavior as a result of fewer resources and greater threat and uncertainty? Alternately, might higher SES and the greater resources and freedom that brings result in relaxed ethical attitudes? To figure out what was going on, the researchers performed a mix of controlled and real-world experiments.

The first two studies looked at whether SES could predict driving behavior, using the make, age, and appearance of vehicles as a marker for SES. (In other words, shiny new BMWs were assumed to be driven by high-status individuals.) The first looked at whether SES affected a driver's tendency to cut off other vehicles at a busy four-way stop in the San Francisco Bay Area. Even when controlled for time of day, the driver's perceived sex and age, and traffic, high SES individuals were significantly more likely to cut off other drivers.

The same effect was apparent when they looked at if SES affected whether a driver was more likely to cut off pedestrians at a crosswalk. Higher SES individuals were significantly more likely to do so.

Next, the researchers turned to controlled experiments. Participants were asked to read different scenarios of people unrightfully benefiting or taking something. Then they were asked how likely they would be to do the same thing. High SES participants were significantly more likely to report that they would engage in these unethical behaviors.

Study number four involved participants rating themselves on the SES scale to heighten their perception of status; they were then answered a number of questions relating to unethical behavior. At the end of the experiment, they were presented with a jar of individually wrapped candy and told that, although it was for children in a nearby lab, they could take some if they wanted. At this point you might be able to guess what the results were. High SES participants took more candy.

Attitudes toward greed were also examined. Study participants role-played a salary negotiation, acting as the employer. They were told before the negotiation that the job in question would would actually be eliminated in the near future. High SES participants were significantly less likely to be truthful about job stability, and significantly more likely to have favorable attitudes towards greed even when controlled for age, sex, ethnicity, religiosity, and political orientation.

The next study gave its participants the chance to cheat. The researchers let them play a computer game of chance (five rolls of a six-sided die), and asked them to report the results. Players were told them that they had an increased chance of a cash prize if they had higher scores, even though the game was actually fixed such that the total scores would always add up to 12. High SES positively predicted cheating, even when controlled in the same ways as the previous study.

The final test looked at whether encouraging positive attitudes towards greed would increase unethical tendencies in lower SES participants. These subjects were either neutrally primed by being asked to list three things about their day, or were positively primed by being asked to list three benefits of greed. Next, their attitude towards greed was assessed, and they were also questioned about their tendency to engage in unethical behavior at work (stealing, accepting bribes, overcharging).

By this point, you'll almost certainly surmise that positive priming for greed significantly increased favorable attitudes towards it, as well as unethical work behavior. Additionally, the higher a participant's SES, the more positive their attitudes were towards greed, and the greater chance they engaged in unethical behavior.

The researchers argue that "the pursuit of self-interest is a more fundamental motive among society's elite, and the increased want associated with greater wealth and status can promote wrongdoing." However, they point out that their findings aren't absolute, and that philanthropic efforts such as those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet buck the observed trend, as does research which has shown a relationship between poverty and violent crime.

Of course it does. How do you think they got rich in the first place? If you're going to say "hard work," you can bet that at least some of that hard work involved screwing someone else over in the process.

This isn't to say that everyone who is wealthy is, but you have to consider how the majority of the wealth in this world is formed. It's an aggregation of inheritance and inheritance tends to shape a different kind of mindset, behavior and response to responsibility to society at large (and often times, to the individuals themselves). Although you don't even need to wait out an entire dynasty for this to bear itself out -- look at those mega-$$ sports athletes.

I would suggest you've got the causality backwards, being unethical makes you wealthy, mostly I suspect because the rules are designed to keep power and money in the hands of those who already have it so to become wealthy or powerful you must break the rules. Perhaps this is a sign the we need to restructure those rules to make vertical economic and social mobility more ethically feasible.

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

This is old news. I would estimate that nearly a majority of college students and high school students have read "The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Of course, Fitzgerald is explaining the experience of the colonists where as most students have had a course in world history and learned about feudalism. So, when was the last time the lord of the manor was an ethical man? If they were all so ethical whither Robin Hood? Besides most high school students have learned about Robber Barons anyway. With a moniker like that should anyone expect ethical behavior? What I am looking forward to is a few lynchings.

"You need to be a self centered jerk with no empathy in order to amass the kind of wealth we are talking about."

Yup. Describes Bill Gates to a T. Well, except for the part about him being the least self-centered, most generous individual in history, but why let that spoil our bitter resentment of anyone who has more money than we do?

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

TL;DR.. Correlation does not equal causation.

Wait, so you're saying that it's better to live in a society that rewards unethical behavior?

"You need to be a self centered jerk with no empathy in order to amass the kind of wealth we are talking about."

Yup. Describes Bill Gates to a T. Well, except for the part about him being the least self-centered, most generous individual in history, but why let that spoil our bitter resentment of anyone who has more money than we do?

It describes him to a T when he was younger and working on building his wealth. Or do you not know anything about him at all?

He found wizdom in his older days. He's in a kind of a unique situation actually. He has so much money he no longer needs to actively make more, or protect what he's got. It's just there for him.

While he was building his wealth he was the biggest prick on the block. Just ask Paul Allen.

Of course it does. How do you think they got rich in the first place? If you're going to say "hard work," you can bet that at least some of that hard work involved screwing someone else over in the process.

While someone might be relatively poor in a rich country, they're still probably very rich compared to someone who lives in some God-forsaken, war-torn, 3rd world nation. So would at also imply that, globally, people from richer countries tend to be more unethical than people from poorer countries?

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

TL;DR.. Correlation does not equal causation.

Wait, so you're saying that it's better to live in a society that rewards unethical behavior?

jcool noted that Ars drew conclusions from the research which were not supported by it. There was no value judgement in the comment.

While someone might be relatively poor in a rich country, they're still probably very rich compared to someone who lives in some God-forsaken, war-torn, 3rd world nation. So would at also imply that, globally, people from richer countries tend to be more unethical than people from poorer countries?

Yes.

There are a lot of immigrants from Africa and Asia where I live. Their behavior is starkly different from the natives. They'll avoid any appearance of impropriety, and apologize even when it isn't their fault. The natives will take anything they think they can get away with. They think they are entitled to everything within reach.

While someone might be relatively poor in a rich country, they're still probably very rich compared to someone who lives in some God-forsaken, war-torn, 3rd world nation. So would at also imply that, globally, people from richer countries tend to be more unethical than people from poorer countries?

This post is representative of the dangerous result of making broad, sweeping generalizations based on statistics in a research study.

I'm sure there are very intriguing aspects to this study, far more interesting than what the main stream media has been reporting along the lines of class warfare, but these analysis are pretty much lost now. It's a little sad Ars didn't go deeper into the study, or do more to present this in a way to prevent misunderstandings.

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

TL;DR.. Correlation does not equal causation.

Wait, so you're saying that it's better to live in a society that rewards unethical behavior?

jcool noted that Ars drew conclusions from the research which were not supported by it. There was no value judgement in the comment.

The US has very low social mobility which means rich twerps probably didn't get rich by being twerps. They didn't get rich at all. They where born rich. Them being twerps probably has more to do with genetics. Their parents, grandparents or ancestors more probably than not got rich by being twerps.

I used to hitchhike a lot as a kid. Beaters would stop more often than nice cars, even when full of kids and packed. With the number of times I hitchhiked, it was a semi scientific experiment.

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

TL;DR.. Correlation does not equal causation.

The research highlighted in the article does draw that conclusion. High SES, generally indicates "wealth". If you have high SES you're more likely to be unethical.

Are you somehow magically compelled to be unethical if you have wealth? Well, duh, no, but it's not wrong to say that the likelihood of you being unethical will be statistically higher.

So, you're either using doublespeak or being incredibly obtuse.

pawqe5s3p86j wrote:

I am extremely disappointed that this communist garbage is being posted on Ars Technica. This article should be removed and this is not the professionalism I expect on Ars.

Also, this study was completed by two universities, and BERKLEY at that. There is already a huge bias.

AMERRRICA! FUCK YEAH!

Also, if you go back in time, like to the era of Christ, you'll see that people were making the whole wealth leads to corruption argument waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before Communism was even conceived. So good try, but you fail.

I would suggest you've got the causality backwards, being unethical makes you wealthy

This, kind of. It's not required that you be unethical to become wealthy, but being so can help shorten the length of time required to become wealthy. You can make a billion dollars in the stock market, but insider trading and other illegal/unethical practices can make you a billionaire a lot sooner.

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

TL;DR.. Correlation does not equal causation.

Wait, so you're saying that it's better to live in a society that rewards unethical behavior?

jcool noted that Ars drew conclusions from the research which were not supported by it. There was no value judgement in the comment.

I disagree.

Ok, well as the authority on what I said, you are incorrect. I made no value judgement on society in general, only on whether the headline's conclusion was supported. Anything else you read into my comment you added yourself.

I disagree that it would be an self-interest only with society's elite its a common thing with middle class and poor. Self-interest is among all social levels, some people see it as managing if greed motivates they can gain more or get something done by someone other then themselves.

"You need to be a self centered jerk with no empathy in order to amass the kind of wealth we are talking about."

Yup. Describes Bill Gates to a T. Well, except for the part about him being the least self-centered, most generous individual in history, but why let that spoil our bitter resentment of anyone who has more money than we do?

Is he really that generous? Or is he trying to avoid the lynchings that Unclebugs mentioned?

What?!?! UC Berkley did a study that shows rich people are evil?!?!I am SHOCKED that was their finding!!!!

pawqe5s3p86j wrote:

I am extremely disappointed that this communist garbage is being posted on Ars Technica. This article should be removed and this is not the professionalism I expect on Ars. Also, this study was completed by two universities, and BERKLEY at that. There is already a huge bias.